The energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, believes there are virtually no practical obstacles to a new generation of nuclear power stations being built - although he is adamant no decision has yet been made on whether to give them the go-ahead.

In an interview with the Guardian before today's launch of a consultation period on the government's energy review, he brushed aside potential hindrances and emphasised atomic power's role in tackling greenhouse gas emissions. He said:

· It was "dead wrong" to think that a financial framework could not be found to encourage private-sector participation,

· A lot of "major companies" were willing to invest in atomic power,

· Pre-licensing of power station designs could speed up planning inquiries,

· Ways to dispose of nuclear waste were available, and the government and private sector could "share" the cost.

The minister insisted he remained "nuclear neutral" and prefaced many statements with the phrase "if we go down the nuclear route", but the broad thrust of his comments will greatly encourage the atomic industry and frustrate critics.

The government deferred a decision in the 2003 energy white paper about nuclear power but must decide this year whether to build new reactors to fill a supply gap and cut greenhouse gas emissions.

Ten atomic stations, supplying about 18% of Britain's electricity, are due to close by 2020, with the country due to rely on renewable sources but mainly gas imports unless more nuclear plants are built.

Meeting the Energy Challenge, a consultation document published today, sets out five key questions that the energy review he chairs will consider. One of the top ones is to acknowledge that the global energy scene is changing dramatically at a time of declining North Sea oil and gas. Britain needs imports at a time when China and India are also competing for similar supplies, Mr Wicks pointed out.

Gazprom of Russia says it wants to provide 20% of Britain's gas imports by 2015 and Mr Wicks said he was relatively relaxed about that but not about wider dependence on imports.

"What happened in January - first when Russia threatened to cut supplies to the Ukraine - has just made me think even more: this is a very important question for the UK. Do we address this by saying that so long as we have different sources of supply ... then we could work our foreign policy around that. Or could you say would it not be sensible to home-grow more of our own energy? It's not just a question of keeping the lights on but national security."

He said there would not be major public spending on a costly atomic programme. Britain would stick to its liberalised and privatised market but that should be no block to nuclear power, he argued. "Some people suggest it's all so complicated economically; it will cost so much; there are all sorts of difficulties about waste; that markets will not go anywhere near this. My judgment is they are dead wrong. A lot of major companies are very interested in investing in nuclear."

Mr Wicks said a financial framework similar to the carbon trading scheme could be the way forward. "I don't think it is intellectually impossible to find mechanisms that incentivise green clean technology ... It could be a version of the renewables obligation. Have I got a scheme in my back pocket, the answer is 'no'".

He said the challenge was so urgent that the planning process needed to be faster. "I want as many people as possible to realise it ain't going to be easy to meet our climate change targets. We need a huge step-change to save the planet, so there has to be some urgent decisions. I don't think people will be very tolerant if ... the whole thing gets held up for 20 years through planning. If we can streamline on this, we should. We should also look at pre-licensing nuclear reactors."

He cannot understand the idea that investment in nuclear would negate the commitment to renewables. "The environmental lobby should at least consider the possibility that the most effective way for energy supply to help us through climate change is nuclear, rather than somehow thinking being green is anti-nuclear."

Mr Wicks is also angry at how UK governments ignored waste. "Our failure as a society to deal with the legacy of nuclear waste has been a disgrace, so one of my ambitions is that we clear up the waste."

He is waiting for the experts to report on waste but he envisages sharing costs. "When you look at ... how long some of this stuff is going to be radioactive, you do have to think in terms of a special relationship between state and market."

The big debate

· Today's consultation document kickstarts a debate on the future of Britain's power supplies. National security is one key consideration, the other is how to cut our greenhouse gas emissions.

· The backdrop is declining North Sea oil and gas reserves, and a growing reliance on foreign imports from potentially volatile countries. By 2020 we could be importing 80% of our gas from places such as Russia.

· Renewable sources such as wind are gradually coming on stream, but the real debate is around nuclear.

· 10 atomic plants currently supplying 18% of our electricity are due to close by 2020. Do we build a new generation when there are still major questions around cost, terrorism and waste disposal?